Feb 12, 2015

The Fourth Object Of Theosophists

There Exists a Special Division

In the Theosophical Movement

Carlos Cardoso Aveline

An image of the Himalayas, in a painting by N. Roerich

“What kind of future should theosophists endeavour to
build?”

Such a question must be examined again and again by each generation of
those who Try to walk along the theosophical path. It constitutes a
central topic in the action of the Independent
Lodge of Theosophists. For Time is like a Sphinx, and it tends to devour
those who can’t give a reasonable answer to the mystery of its multiple
potentialities.

The theosophical movement aims at helping the birth of Wisdom in the
present humanity.

It was created, therefore, to live many thousands of years, while its
outer structures are short-lived. A clear vision of its long-term duty and
“dharma” is probably the best magic
talisman with which theosophists can renew the work and the form of
the movement, wherever and whenever it is necessary.

In her text “The Organization of the Theosophical Society”,
H.P.Blavatsky refers to the first moments of the creation of the movement.

She says the Masters did not tell the two chief Founders (H. S. Olcott
and herself) what they “had to do” to
organize it.

And she adds:

“But if the two Founders were not
told what they had to do, they were distinctly
instructed about what they should never
do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become.
Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future
contrasts to our Society.”[1]

At the same time, and in apparent conflict with that, an utter respect should
be kept for everyone’s religious beliefs.

The contrast between dogmatic churches and the theosophical movement is
a decisive point. Opposition to blind faith must be active, and not passive, as
we can see by the “fourth object of the movement”, which H.P.B. describes in
the same text.

While examining the movement’s History, she mentions its various objects
as they were initially defined. The first one was brotherhood. Another one was
to ignore distinctions among races, social rank or creeds. A third object
pointed to the study of Eastern philosophies.

The fourth goal was -

“To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way,
by demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to science, in nature,
and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in man; trying, at the same
time to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them that there are
other, many other agencies at work in the production of phenomena besides the
‘Spirits’ of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed and avoided; and occult
forces, beneficent and maleficent - ever surrounding us and manifesting their
presence in various ways - demonstrated to the best of our ability.” [2]

This was no isolated statement.

In September 1877, H.P.B. had written at the preface to the first volume
of “Isis Unveiled”:

“The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat
intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of their science. It is
offered to such as are willing to accept truth wherever it may be found, and to
defend it, even looking popular prejudice straight in the face. (...) The book
is written in all sincerity. It is meant to do even justice, and to speak the
truth alike without malice or prejudice. But it shows neither mercy for
enthroned error, nor reverence for usurped authority.”

She further explained it in the closing paragraphs of the preface to the
second volume of “Isis”:

“An analysis of religious beliefs in general, this volume is in
particular directed against theological Christianity, the chief opponent of
free thought. It contains not one word against the pure teachings of Jesus, but
unsparingly denounces their debasement into pernicious ecclesiastical systems
that are ruinous to man’s faith in his immortality and his God, and subversive
of all moral restraint.”

And also:

“We cast our gauntlet at the dogmatic theologians who would enslave both
history and science; and especially at the Vatican, whose despotic pretensions
have become hateful to the greater portion of enlightened Christendom. The
clergy apart, none but the logician, the investigator, the dauntless explorer
should meddle with books like this. Such delvers after truth have the courage
of their opinions.”

Such an abstract view of things had a more practical counterpart in esoteric
levels of the theosophical movement itself.

In the “Mahatma Letters”, one can find a reference to it in a message
dated March 1882:

“Even in the T.S. there is a division, managed by a Greek Brother about
which not a person in the Society has a suspicion excepting the old woman and
Olcott; and even he only knows it is progressing, and occasionally executes an
order I send him in connection with it.” [3]

And to this we could associate another passage in a letter which Alfred
Sinnett had received only two months earlier, in January 1882. It was written
by D.K., by orders of an Adept-Teacher. It says:

“I am also to tell you that in certain Mr. Bennett of America who will
shortly arrive at Bombay, you may recognize one, who (...) is one of our agents
(unknown to himself) to carry out the scheme for the enfranchisement of Western thoughts from
superstitious creeds.” [4]

One should observe the confluence of two facts: the goal - which
corresponds to the fourth
object - is to liberate Western
thoughts; and there is a division in the
movement under the direction of a Greek, a Western
Adept.

In “Isis Unveiled”, H.P.B writes about the theosophical movement:

“The object of its founders was to experiment practically in the occult
powers of Nature, and to collect and disseminate among Christians information
about the Oriental religious philosophies. Later, it has determined to spread
among the ‘poor benighted heathen’ such evidences as to the practical results
of Christianity as will at least give both sides of the story to the
communities among which the missionaries are at work. With this view it has
established relations with associations and individuals throughout the East, to
whom it furnishes authenticated reports of the ecclesiastical crimes and
misdemeanors, schisms and heresies, controversies and litigations, doctrinal
differences and biblical criticisms and revisions, with which the press of
Christian Europe and America constantly teems. (...) It may also have much to
say about the conduct of the missionaries to those who contribute to their
support.” [5]

The movement was not meant to remain in silence before the crimes and
frauds of ecclesiastical Christianity, or any other sect, nor to run away from
correcting its own mistakes.

Dangers and obstacles are never exclusively external. There was a reason
for William Q. Judge to name “dogmatism”, “priesthood”, and “materialism” among
the main possibilities of failure for the theosophical movement, in his paper
“Suggestions to Branches”. [6]

It is fortunate that failures are impermanent and can always be
corrected, for large sections of the movement have failed in this regard,
starting during HPB’s life.

Her text “Why I Do Not Return to India” is one among many evidences of
that. During the 20th century,
“theosophical” groups expanded the mistake and got down to the level
of creating a “Liberal Catholic Church”
and other Vatican-like organizations.

In spite of all obstacles, the
essential movement has survived.

The United Lodge of Theosophists and independent students and workers have fulfilled
a key role in preserving both the authentic teachings and common sense. This,
of course, was not always easy. In 1932, the “ULT Day Letter” - issued from Los
Angeles - had this to say to the ULT Associates and friends all over the
world:

“Pseudo-theosophy and pseudo-theosophists have at all times wrought
havoc to the Movement by deceiving and misleading the sincere but unwary.
Efforts conscious and unconscious on the part of individuals to make capital for themselves by
exploiting the teachings of Theosophy continue now as during the lifetime of
H.P.B. and Mr. Judge. And to-day the same need exists to distinguish between
genuine and spurious attempts at
fraternity among Theosophical Societies as to discern between genuine and
spurious Theosophy.”

The 1932 ULT Letter - most likely written by John Garrigues - continued:

“There can be no true basis of ‘fraternization’ between those, who not
only add to and whittle away, but contradict the teachings of H.P.B. and those
who recognize in her Secret Doctrine what she said, that ‘it contains all that can be
given out to the world in this century’; that ‘it will take centuries before
much more is given out’. But there should be, and ever has been, genuine fraternity
felt and manifested by all Associated of the United Lodge of Theosophists
toward all fellow-students of the Message of H.P.B., regardless of all minor
considerations or affiliation. That this true brotherhood was a prime factor in
the foundation of the United Lodge, its Declaration and history bear
testimony.”[7]

In a document of critical importance, Robert Crosbie showed the great
similarity between “the way the Jesuits side-tracked Masonry” and the way
pseudo-theosophists infiltrated the esoteric movement founded by H.P.B., Olcott
and Judge. After mentioning the Jesuits in Masonry, Mr. Crosbie wrote:

“They entered it, obtained its secrets, invented ‘higher degrees’ to
draw attention from what lay hidden in the original ones, and gradually made it
innocuous, and incapable of leading to the knowledge that they feared. Much of
what is going on and has gone on in the
. . . . society has the appearance of leading into innocuous desuetude.
This is the mode of working of Brahmano-Jesuitical forces, and the ordinary
thinker is unable either to perceive, or credit it if warned.” [8]

There has always been a certain inner line of action in the movement
which is sustained by workers who will not put their personal comfort above
Truth, and who will fight illusions as they emerge in themselves or within the
ranks of the movement. These people have played a central part in preserving the
heart of the movement, which is, of course, much smaller than its outer
body. The student who takes this into consideration and examines the movement’s
history will perhaps ask himself:

“After all, what could be a nutshell description of
the events since H.P.B.’s death in 1891?”

A common sense answer might well include these seven points:

FIRST

Both subjectively and objectively, the movement ceased to interact as
intensely as before with the “outside world”, or “the great orphan” - humanity
as a whole.

The nucleus of universal brotherhood was preserved; but it got smaller
than one would initially think of. In
that aspect, the movement got poorer since 1891.

SECOND

At the same time, a great part of the movement stopped discussing and
criticizing dogmatic religions.

In their search for psychological comfort, many students forgot the
“Fourth Object” quoted above. They also left aside (among others) such
essential documents as: 1) the “Prayag Letter” (which is Letter number CXXXIV in the Mahatma Letters); 2) the
Mahatma Letter number X; 3) the complete text of the 1900 Letter, which was only
partially published in the first series of “Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom”. [9]

THIRD

In connection with a new comfort-loving attitude, the movement got more
and more fragmented for reasons related to “internal power struggles”, often fueled
and justified by the exercise of false clairvoyance, lower “iddhis” and several
kinds of occult fancies emerging from a sense of “personal importance”.

FOURTH

Different sections of the movement started to search for a comfortable sensation
of tamasic security through uniformity
of thought. Thus they forgot that real safety can only be found in the courage
to preserve diversity and contrast.

This fact then led to a “theosophical
quietism”, a sort of “mystical immobilization of the soul” -; a danger
which had already been emphatically denounced in the Mahatma Letters. [10]

FIFTH

Pseudo-theosophical ritualisms - such as neo-masonry, “Liberal” Catholic
Church and the “Egyptian” Rite - are gradually losing importance in the Adyar
TS since 1953, when N. Sri Ram took over. This process had some small and far
too insufficient acceleration since Radha Burnier took over in 1980.

SIXTH

In spite of these problems, part of the movement is gradually coming
back to its original programme and literature. Progress is slow. The origin of
such a historical trend can be objectively traced to the foundation of the United
Lodge of Theosophists in 1909.

The Independent Lodge of
Theosophists belongs to this renewing dynamics. It was founded in 2016,
precisely one hundred and seven years after the creation of the ULT. This period
of time forms an occult cycle according to the Mahatma Letters.

While the ILT works above all
on the level of occult causes, some visible results of its work already exist.
Its cooperative effort started years before its own name and form emerged. The
small Independent Lodge tries to be a living flame of study and loyalty to the philosophy of the
movement.

SEVENTH

The movement’s greatest potentialities as to the future are yet to be
developed.

They include the fact that, if the movement opens itself to its own occult responsibility to the world as
the world is today, it can grow morally much better and bigger, and easily get
rid of its small inter-group and inter-personality conflicts, as well as its
petty forms of blind belief and tamasic attachment.

Stimulating such a process is among the goals of the
Independent Lodge.

Thus the movement will be able to
accept truthfulness and contrast, reclaiming the fourth object
formulated by HPB. It will also be able to liberate itself from the old ritualistic
appendixes and Vatican-inspired structures fabricated in the first three
decades of the 20th century. It will strongly act out of a pure and direct universal compassion and
love for truth.

The Adyar Theosophical Society is not the sole proprietor of the movement’s mistakes. Also, no
theosophical virtue belongs exclusively to this or that part of the movement.

There is no true separation in humanity, or in the movement, from an
occult viewpoint. The fragmentation process which has occurred since 1891 is
much more external and apparent than internal or real. Unity is dynamic. The
progress or failure of each one is a living factor that helps or hinders
everyone else.

The most dangerous path, one should remember, is often that which seems
to be the easiest and the most comfortable of all. The pioneers who actually know their lofty goal pave the way to a
healthier future and perform a task that seems to be arid.

NOTES:

[1] “The Organization
of the Theosophical Society”, in “Theosophical Articles”, H.P.B., The Theosophy
Co., 1981, edition in three volumes, see vol. I, pp. 223-224. The same text is
published as a volume under the title “The Original Programme of the
Theosophical Society”, H. P. Blavatsky, TPH, India, 1974, 76 pp., see it from p.
3.

[7] The 1932 ULT Day
Letter can be seen in the compilation entitled “The ULT Day Letters, 1931-1960”. The
name of the author “United Lodge of Theosophists”, and it is available at our
associated websites.

An initial version of the above text was published in
the August 2007 edition of “The Aquarian
Theosophist”.

000

In September 2016, after
a careful analysis of the state of the esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students
decided to form the Independent Lodge of
Theosophists, whose priorities include the building of a better future in
the different dimensions of life.